scratchisthebest wrote:

by this logic, we can remove “move (10) steps”

why not just use

go to x: ((x position) + ([cos v] of ((direction)*(amt)))) y ((x position) + ([sin v] of ((direction)*(amt))))

i mean jeez so simple

change x by ()

DIAMOND_77 wrote:

there is a work around

()^()::operators reporter

(99999999999999999999)^(99999999999999999999)::operators reporter

Fupicat wrote:

Wait, there isn't a block like this already? Weird. Support.

Sheep_maker wrote:

Duplicate, found via searching “exponent” instead of “to the power of”

78ch3 wrote:

Not all duplicates are the same. Mine is easier to understand.

78ch3 wrote:

Sheep_maker wrote:

Duplicate, found via searching “exponent” instead of “to the power of”

Not all duplicates are the same. Mine is easier to understand.

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base))) :: operators )

([e^ v] of ((power) * ([ln v] of (base))) :: operators )

define find (base)^(power)
set [result v] to (1)
repeat (power)
set [result v] to ((result) * (base))
end

Charles12310 wrote:

Here's a workaround:

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base))) :: operators )

or:

([e^ v] of ((power) * ([ln v] of (base))) :: operators )

You could also do (for positive numbers):

define find (base)^(power)
set [result v] to (1)
repeat (power)
set [result v] to ((result) * (base))
end

define find (base)^(power)
set [result v] to (1)
repeat ([abs v] of (power))
set [result v] to ((result) * (base))
end
if <(power) < (0)> then
set [result v] to ((1)/(result))
end

Charles12310 wrote:

Charles12310 wrote:

Here's a workaround:

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base))) :: operators )

or:

([e^ v] of ((power) * ([ln v] of (base))) :: operators )

You could also do (for positive numbers):

define find (base)^(power)
set [result v] to (1)
repeat (power)
set [result v] to ((result) * (base))
end

Updated:

define find (base)^(power)
set [result v] to (1)
repeat ([abs v] of (power))
set [result v] to ((result) * (base))
end
if <(power) < (0)> then
set [result v] to ((1)/(result))
end

78ch3 wrote:

Please don't post workabouts. I have had enough of them. It is better not to have the workabout because it merges the workabout into a smaller block, making there be more space for scripts.

cul8er wrote:

78ch3 wrote:

Please don't post workabouts. I have had enough of them. It is better not to have the workabout because it merges the workabout into a smaller block, making there be more space for scripts.

But if there is a easy workaround, it's not worth the effort for the ST to put in a new block if there's no other reason for it to be included.

(((((((((((2) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2)) * (2))